Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Game’ Category

Krauser is one of a small handful of pickup artists (old skool translation: womanizers) CH respects who are legitimate voices in a wilderness of heavy-handed marketing and shyster phonies. He’s got tight game, avoids hype, keeps it on the level, and his style isn’t overheated histrionics that only appeal to a minority of highly extroverted men. For those who require proof of poonhoundery, Krauser used to post up documentary XXX videos of the girls he was banging, and CH can confirm they were a quality lot. (Probably a good idea he stopped doing that.)

Also, for you “only looks matter” trolls, Krauser is not a Clooney clone. So you can rest easy that his lays are earned by the nimbleness of his tongue than by the twinkle of his bedroom eyes.

Krauser has a new book out — a monster by the looks of it — called Daygame Mastery. Word on the street is that it’s the Encyclopedia Britannica of day game. Quote:

  • The vibe chapters explain targeting, cold reading the potential targets, girl archetypes plus their traits and his own take on approach anxiety (which I hadn’t heard before). There’s also some interesting stuff on stateless game rather than getting into state.
  • The street chapters cover everything from stopping, body language, subcommunication, tone, different opening methods and his own template on opening. This is further broken down to show how it works. The conversational section is fascinating, it gives examples on advancing with hooks or rapport and then expands further.
  • There is a short game/long game segment is fantastic and it could be a book in itself. Instances of text chats are shown and every sent/received text is dissected, the same is done with social media. Krauser shows how to build the most appealing facebook profile and then more real world examples of the chats he’s had and why they have worked.
  • The date model is incredible descriptive, detailing everything from how to react if she’s late, venue selection/how to run each venue, types of language/body language to use, physical escalation, when it’s on/not on. It’s like every nuance of this phase has been considered.
  • The last segment of the book delves into some special situations such as same day lays, interloping men, frame crush, fine tuning to the girl and dealing with difficult girls, again with examples of each.

There’s no questioning Krauser’s reservoir of game knowledge, and it appears he has stuffed this tome with just about everything he knows. And possibly just about everything anyone knows on the subject.

Be warned, at $100 it’s steeply priced. But it looks worth it. So if you have the loose change, CH gives a (preliminary) recommendation. If you’re one of those men who has tired of night game and the club scene (and if you’re over 25 this likely applies to you), then daygame is where your focus will naturally gravitate. Being able to meet girls in the daytime and capture their interest, is very empowering in the realist sense, not the bitter feminist sense.

A book this exhaustive should be read like one would read a textbook for a class; deliberately and diligently. Take a break from every chapter to apply what you’ve read to the field. One caveat: It’s easy to get caught up regurgitating an endless loop of PUA books while losing sight of the ultimate goal. I suspect a lot of men buy these books with the feeling that the material provides handy excuses to never approach a woman in real life. Maybe you’re one of those men who convinces himself that you’re growing as a player by reading about penetrating insights into female nature and courtship techniques? The books have their place, but don’t let them substitute for actual experience applying the lessons contained therein. You don’t need more than two or three highly regarded resources to learn what you need to know to get started seducing women the way they love to be seduced.

Read Full Post »

Homeless Helper Game

If you live in a metropolitan region where there’s a nontrivial per capita population of homeless, and you see the same street bums lounging on the same spots of sidewalk on your daily constitutional, you can run what I call Homeless Helper Game.

The concept is simple. Buy your lunch and a little extra, like a pastry. Under pretense of charity, and in full view of some passing cuties, kneel down in front of the bum and hand him the pastry, saying “you look like you could use a bite”. Act like you think no one is watching you (that means no glancing around for approval, unless you can conceal it really well).

The homeless guy of course will be elated. The girls will be wet. No girl, no matter how cynical or corporately manjawed, can resist this display of alpha male generosity. Why alpha male? Because providing charity is alpha; receiving charity is beta, veering into omega territory.

The trick is to spin your insta-DHV into a conversation with one of the passing cuties. Occasionally, a girl will approach you to say she noticed and thought it was a great thing you did. Reply with a faux humble “I didn’t think anyone saw that. Now I’m kind of embarrassed.”

Otherwise, you’ll have to situate yourself near a girl you know witnessed your act of charity, say at a bus stop or pedestrian crossing, and make a show of crumpling up the paper from which you withdrew the pastry you gave to the bum. If she’s at all intrigued, that will be enough to get her talking.

This isn’t a high volume game tactic. There are way more efficient ways to meet women. But it’s a fun addition to your seduction skillset and a great way to spice up an otherwise ordinary stroll. Oh yeah, and you fed a homeless guy, which is better than giving him cash money which will inevitably be spent on liquor.

Read Full Post »

Jesus Had Game

Jesus wept? Oh no, my friends. Jesus charmed!

Jesus, like so many leading protagonists in the great books for men, had game, and used it to mesmerize the fuck outta his audiences of admirers. There’s a direct line throughout history leading from the thorny crown to the furry hat. Jesus was mystery, and Jesus was the first Mystery.

Proof of Jesus’ mad skills with the coy doubters comes to us via this nifty list of his best follower pickups.

One of the best-described of all charismatic leaders is Jesus. About 90 face-to-face encounters with Jesus are described in the four gospels of the New Testament.

Notice what happens:

The Son of God is about to raise your buying temperature.

Jesus is sitting on the ground, teaching to a crowd in the outer courtyard of the temple at Jerusalem. The Pharisees, righteous upholders of traditional ritual and law, haul before him a woman taken in adultery. They make her stand in front of the crowd and say to Jesus: “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The Law commands us to stone her to death. What do you say?”

The text goes on that Jesus does not look up at them, but continues to write in the dirt with his finger. This would not be unusual; Archimedes wrote geometric figures in the dust, and in the absence of ready writing materials the ground would serve as a chalkboard. The point is that Jesus does not reply right away; he lets them stew in their uneasiness.

Jesus used tension to build attraction.

Minutes go by. One by one, the crowd starts to slip away, the older ones first– the young hotheads being the ones who do the stoning, as in the most primitive parts of the Middle East today.

Finally Jesus is left with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightens up and asks her: “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”  She answers: “No one.” “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus says. “Go now and sin no more.” (John 8: 1-11)

Jesus is a master of timing. He does not allow people to force him into their rhythm, their definition of the situation. He perceives what they are attempting to do, the intention beyond the words. And he makes them shift their ground.

Jesus forced others into his frame.

He does not allow the encounter to focus on himself against the Pharisees. He knows they are testing him, trying to make him say something in violation of the law; or else back down in front of his followers. Instead Jesus throws it back on their own consciences, their inner reflections about the woman they are going to kill. He individualizes the crowd, making them drift off one by one, breaking up the mob mentality.

Jesus passed shit tests.

Jesus is a charismatic leader, indeed the archetype of charisma. Although sociologists tend to treat charisma as an abstraction, it is observable in everyday life. We are viewing the elements of it, in the encounters of Jesus with the people around him.

Game is applied charisma. I wonder if Jesus was a Dark Triad? Or should I say, Dark Trinity?

(1) Jesus always wins an encounter [...]

Jesus never lets anyone determine the conversational sequence. He answers questions with questions, putting the interlocutor on the defensive. An example, from early in his career of preaching around Galilee:

Jesus has been invited to dinner at the house of a Pharisee. A prostitute comes in and falls at his feet, wets his feet with her tears, kisses them and pours perfume on them. The Pharisee said to himself, “If this man is a prophet, he would know what kind of woman is touching him– that she is a sinner.”

Jesus, reading his thoughts, said to him: “I have something to tell you.” “Tell me,” he said. Jesus proceeded to tell a story about two men who owed money, neither of whom could repay the moneylender. He forgives them both, the one who owes 500 and the one who owes 50. Jesus asked: “Which of the two will love him more?” “The one who had the bigger debt forgiven,” the Pharisee replied. “You are correct,” Jesus said. “Do you see this woman? You did not give me water for my feet, but this woman wet them with her tears and dried them with her hair… Therefore her many sins have been forgiven– as her great love has shown.”

Jesus doesn’t follow conversational threads like an attention starved beta; he breaks them and makes his own. He answers ambiguously. He puts people in the defensive crouch, where tingles are born. Jesus follows the statement-statement-question format of effective discourse control.

The priests send spies, hoping to catch Jesus in saying something so that they might hand him over to the Roman governor. So they asked: “Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

Jesus knowing their evil intent, said to them, “Show me the coin used to pay taxes.” When they brought it, he said, “Whose image is on it?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”  And they were astonished by his answer, and were silent.

Jesus the charismatic alpha male was unpredictable. You expect him to say one thing; he says another. AMOGs show deference and vaginas weep on cue.

(2)  Jesus is quick and absolutely decisive

As his mission is taking off in Galilee, followers flock to hear him. Some he invites to come with him. It is a life-changing decision.

A man said to him: “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” Jesus replied: “Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.”

It is a shocking demand. In a ritually pious society, there is nothing more important that burying your father. Jesus demands a complete break with existing social forms; those who follow them, he implies, are dead in spirit.

Chicks hate mincing betaboys. Jesus was not a mincing betaboy. Chicks dig rule breakers. Jesus was definitely a rule breaker.

The Pharisees complained, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus replied, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Jesus perceives who will make a good recruit, and who will not.

Jesus was practiced in the art of target selection.

(3) Jesus always does something unexpected [...]

Some of the disciples said indignantly to each other, “Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.

“Leave her alone,” Jesus said. “She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want.  But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare me for my funeral.” (Mark 14: 1-10; Matthew 26: 6-13)

A double jolt. His disciples by now have understood the message about the selfishness of the rich and charity to the poor. But there are circumstances and momentous occasions that transcend even the great doctrine of love thy neighbour. Jesus is zen-like in his unexpectedness. There is a second jolt, and his disciples do not quite get it. Jesus knows he is going to be crucified. He has the political sense to see where the confrontation is headed; in this he is ahead of his followers, who only see his power.

When was the last time you saw an alpha male do the dull, boring thing? Never.

(4) Jesus knows what the other is intending

Jesus is an intelligent observer of the people around him.

Jesus was situationally aware.

He is highly focused on everyone’s moral and social stance, and sees it in the immediate moment. Charismatic people are generally like that; Jesus does it to a superlative degree.

Jesus lived in the moment. Jesus did not suffer “paralysis by analysis”.

Jesus’ perceptiveness helps explain why he dominates his encounters. He surprises interlocutors by unexpectedly jumping from their words, not to what conventionally follows verbally, but instead speaking to what they are really about, skipping the intermediate stages.

Jesus knew how to “elicit values”, and build deep connections with people.

(5) Jesus is master of the crowd [...]

Crowds are a major source of Jesus’ power. There is a constant refrain: “The crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” His enemies the high priests are afraid of what his crowd of followers will do if they attack Jesus.

Jesus was socially proofed.

[His disciples] are the privileged in-group, and they know it. Jesus admonishes them from time to time about their pride; but he needs them, too. It is another reason why living with Jesus is bracing. There is an additional circuit of charismatic energy in the inner circle.

Push-pull game.

Jesus can still arouse this crowd, but he cannot silence it. He does not back off, but becomes increasingly explicit. The metaphors he does use are not effective. His sheep that he refers to means his own crowd of loyal followers, and Jesus declares he has given them eternal life– but not to this hostile crowd of unbelievers. Words no longer convince; the sides declaim stridently against each other. The eloquent phrases of earlier preaching have fallen into cacophony. Nevertheless Jesus still escapes violence. The crowd is never strong enough to dominate him. Only the organized authorities can take him, and that he does not evade.

Alpha males can be taken down by a state-sanctioned beta male show of force.

(6) Jesus’ down moments

Even an alpha male occasionally gets cockblocked.

Leaving aside the miracle itself and its symbolism, one thing we see in this episode is Jesus conflicted between his mission– to demonstrate the power of resurrection– and his personal feelings for Lazarus and his sisters. Jesus let Lazarus die, by staying away during his sickness, in order to make this demonstration, but in doing so he caused grief to those he loved. The moment when he confronts their pain (amplified by the weeping of the crowd), Jesus himself weeps. It is the only time in the texts when he weeps. It is a glimpse of himself as a human being, as well as a man on a mission.

Vulnerability game.

Finally Jesus is taken before Pilate, the Roman governor. Jesus gives his usual sharp replies, and indeed wins him over. “Are you the King of the Jews?” Pilate asks.

King of the Poon, amirite?

“Is that your own idea,” Jesus asks in return, “or did others talk to you about me?”

“Am I a player? Only if you want me to be.”

In the crises, Jesus’ interactional style remains much the same as always; but the speaking in parables and figurative language has given way to blunt explanations. Parables are for audiences who want to understand. Facing open adversaries, Jesus turns to plain arguments.

Sometimes it’s necessary to drop the flirty banter and aloofness and draw a line in the sand that you don’t want a woman to cross.

Jesus the alpha male. Jesus the PUA (of disciples). Jesus the master of the crimson arts. Men followed him. Powerful men feared him. Prostitutes paid *him*.

Jesus is risen, indeed!

Read Full Post »

I’ve never been on board with the habit of calling or texting a girl before a date to confirm that it’s still on. I get the idea of it — if she’s about to flake, you save yourself the hassle and indignity of getting caught out alone — but practical considerations aside, the very act of confirming dates conveys lower value. Assuming the sale means assuming she’ll be there at the agreed upon time. It doesn’t mean assuming she forgot, or she might not show, and you have to double check to be sure her oh-so-busy schedule still allows time for your meager and annoying company.

Given the inherent DLV of date confirmations, men are advised to avoid the practice altogether or, if circumstances require confirming a date, to confirm with sly obliqueness that sidesteps the trap of self-betatization.

On the subject, a reader asks,

Long time reader here who has improved game, life style and understanding of women in general.  Here’s my question.  I always find it DLV to confirm a first date with a new girl, and have devised a few C&F methods, but here’s a new one I seek your opinion on.  I send a text a few hours before the date:

ME: I already have plans for tonight, but I’m free tomorrow night

HER: what/ok/whatever

ME: Wrong person, obviously I have plans with you tonight.

It does 2 things – 1. Shows that maybe another girl is reaching out to you and 2. You’re actually confirming.

Thoughts? A better version?

TIA

This is a twisted version of Reverse Eavesdropping Game. It’s a manipulative ploy to project high male mate value by (not so subtly) insinuating the fullness of your dance card. And, as the reader has noted, it’s a sneaky method to confirm a date with a girl without appearing like you called to confirm.

The difficulty with this tactic is the substantial risk of transparency. How obvious is it that your text was actually meant for her and not for another imaginary girl? The less obvious, the better Reverse Eavesdropping Game works. If you think the context is right and the impression you left with her is congruent with the believability of these texting tricks, then give it a whirl. Otherwise, I’d say skip this style of overwrought sneaky fucker texting and try these alternatives to confirming dates instead:

1. The preemptive “I’ll be late” gambit.

Need to confirm a date? Not sure if she’ll show up? Text her a few hours beforehand to tell her you’ll be late.

“just letting you know i’ll be ten minutes late. don’t be tragically sad.”

The beauty of this trick is that it simultaneously makes you seem higher value (you’ve got a busy life) while leaving the door open for her to announce an intention to flake if that was her plan. You aren’t confirming anything; you’re assuming she’ll be there. Her reply will be either “ok” in which case you have pretty good evidence she’ll show up or, if she was planning to cancel, she’ll be trapped in a corner where she either has to baldly lie (most girls won’t do this) or fess up that she won’t make it.

2. The “Wear something cute” gambit.

This is a classic PUA end-run around a potential flake. You text, “Wear [X] and [X] tonight” a couple hours before the date. No direct confirmation, no DLV. The assumption of her presence at the agreed time and place is tacit. If she doesn’t reply, she’s lost interest and is likely going to flake. If she does, her reply will tell you enough about her intention, or lack thereof, to show up that you can cease any further communication until you’re face-to-face with her (or until you’ve deleted her number).

Hope this helps!

Read Full Post »

If you ever receive a dubious excuse from a girl who has cancelled a date at the last second, the best reply is an ambiguous one that could be interpreted as either sarcastic disbelief or sincere sympathy. For example,

GIRL: Sorry I can’t make it! My grandma fell and can’t get up. I have to take her to the hospital.

YOU: wow

That’s it. The insidious beauty of this one word reply is that, in the event her excuse was genuine, your muted exclamation can easily fill in as a plausible expression of condolence. If she’s lying, she’ll be psychologically self-groomed to interpret your “wow” as a jerkboy dismissal, and your value to her as a sexual being will go up.

“wow” is a great all-purpose ambiguous message that can springboard into all sorts of flirty conversation.

YOU: wow

GIRL: You don’t believe me? No really my grandma fell.

YOU: ok. say hi to grandma for me.

or…

YOU: wow

GIRL: don’t be such an asshole.

YOU: wow that sucks. I hope she feels better.

You can really screw with a girl’s head if you’re familiar with the art of ambiguity.

Read Full Post »

Gaming Mediocre Girls

Yes, I know what some of you are thinking. “Game mediocre girls?! What’s the point? That’s like learning how to appreciate the aroma of a turd bouquet.”

This electro-retreat tries to stay as close as possible to practical advice that would work in the real world. In the real world, most men are not banging out 9s and 10s (for the simple reason that there aren’t nearly enough 9s and 10s to service all the men who want them). In the real world, some men are huge nerds. As CH has written before, game, like all male attractiveness traits sans perhaps fame, has its limits. Notwithstanding tout-able exceptions to the contrary, all else equal game will not enable the typical male 3 to date female 8s on a long-term basis.

Given that plain-as-day premise (and yes, I know there are game maestros who joyously flout the fat part of the bell curve), there remains a healthy market for the placid love of mediocre girls who are, after all, not fugs nor morbidly obese Beelzeblobs.

Short primer
Untouchables: 0,1
Uglies: 2,3
Mediocrities:4,5,low 6
Cuties: high 6,7
Hotties: 8,9,10

In the arena of accelerated seduction, comparative SMVs matter. Half of men are starting from a low spot in the male sexual hierarchy, from where a bounce up to dating 5s or 6s would represent for them considerable improvement in their romantic fortunes.

This post, then, is for those men. It’s quick and dirty game for the mediocrities and, to a lesser extent, the cuties who have not yet had their egos inflated past their psi burst risk. Game doesn’t need to do much to make a man much happier than he ever imagined he could be. If a low SMV man is sadly accustomed to dating 3s, the joy of dating 5s regularly will make him feel like the luckiest man on earth. (At least until he gets bored of the 5s.)

Gaming mediocre girls is, in the general, a less purposefully antagonistic affair than gaming hotter girls. This is because middling chicks have lower self-esteems and thus don’t require the verbal feints and parries that hotter girls need to feel excited about a man.

The above betacentric generality loses relevance if the SMVs between the man and the mediocrity are close. That is, a male 8 gaming a female 5 will need more front-loaded beta reassurance game to make her feel like he is attainable and sincerely interested in her. For him, simple compliments on her sense of style can open the floodgates to speed seduction.

But a man who is closer in SMV to a mediocre 5, or even lower SMV than her, will have to game her like she’s a 7. However, my travels across the dating landscape have revealed a peculiarity to gaming mediocrities: Many are so beaten down by the pump and dumps they’ve suffered that they need to hear a nice thing before they’ll be receptive to any sort of pickup attempt.

The key is how your “nice” opener is framed. It can’t be chucked into the air like a hail mary pass. It can’t be sappy. It can’t be trite. Instead, try this:

“You seem like a happy person. That’s not a bad thing.”

To a genuinely upbeat girl, this will provoke a smile. Technically, it’s a compliment. But it’s also a very subtle neg and frame control; you’re short-circuiting her instinct to assume she’s being patronized, while guiding her to a conversation on your terms.

Even compliments can be massaged by game so that they are more effectively delivered. If you’re a nerd for whom 5s and 6s are a dream come true, game for mediocre girls who otherwise wilt under the heat of intense seduction techniques may be something you should consider adding to your traditional pickup repertoire.

Read Full Post »

Keychain Game

Valued commenter Reservoir Tip relays,

I’ve been toying with this game method for a little while now, and think it’s pretty solid.

When a date and I are sitting down, I grab her keychain, and say, “Ya know… You can tell a lot about a girl by what she keeps on her keychain.”

Sucks them right in. Then you go on to analyze all the little trinkets she keeps on it. College girls’ keychains are practically cat o nine tails with all the junk they have hanging off them. Found a girls AA token on a keychain last night, and it had her qualifying herself to me for the next ten minutes.

Keychain Game.

As practical game advice, the phrase “You can tell a lot about a girl by [X]” (or its variant, “I can tell a lot about you by [X]“) is highly concentrated and purified chick crack.

Chick crack is any conversation topic or titillating segue that engages girls so powerfully they forget to act bored or shit test you. Cold reads like Keychain Game fall into this category, as does any ruse which implicitly recognizes a girl’s natural solipsism and entrancement with her own uniqueness.

The best thing about chick crack, besides its ability to pry taciturn pouters, are the opportunities for negs, teasing and disqualifications once the girl starts giddily reveling in her psychological diagnosis. Per Mr. Tip, the more a girl loves herself, the better you can leverage her self-love into self-surrender.

Read Full Post »

Assume The Sale Game

Here’s a conversation I had with a girl on the night we met. Some details have been redacted to protect the devilish.

Little Lord Lucifer: Go over there and do [X] for me.

Girl: And what would I get out of that?

Little Lord Lucifer: My approval.

Girl: (waits a beat, audibly snorts) Your approval! What does that even mean?

Little Lord Lucifer: It means exactly what it sounds like.

Twenty seconds of me warmly smiling and her accusing me of being “full of it” and “a psycho” elapse. Suddenly, she looks at me with widened eyes, her mouth opens a little, she cocks her head, and gets up to do [X]. She returns, mission accomplished.

Girl: (with feigned deference) Did I perform to your expectations, oh great one?

Little Lord Lucifer: Yes. Thanks. I approve.

Girl: (sarcastically) Oh, I am SO relieved to be in your good graces!

***

Now, there’s a couple sociosexual dynamics going on here. There’s the obvious one that she did the thing I asked of her. Sarcastic intent notwithstanding to the contrary, I raised a hoop and she jumped through it. All that her consent required was my rock-solid frame and confidence that she would do it. Overconfidence is the heart of game.

Two, even when humorous or sarcastic intent guides a woman’s compliance — as if she was role-playing for the amusement of both of you — the physical motions of going through with the request will generate real feelings in her of slightly lower value and submission to a higher value man. This phenomenon is like the inverse of power poses, where instead of elevating one’s confidence and self-assurance through behavioral cues, one evokes feelings of submission and deference through “powerlessness poses.”

All of this psychological legerdemain acts on the abacus of subconscious mate evaluation. PUAs call it subcommunication, and it’s a powerful, if mischievous, means of strengthening attraction in women.

Read Full Post »

Reframing

Here’s an example of the utility of reframing to domains outside the sphere of pickup. Reader PA asks,

What is a good, short, SFW [safe for work] response to the 77% [pay gap] lie?

Other than “it’s not true if type of profession, years of experience, and overtime are factored in.”

PA is right to tacitly assert that an effective reframe to a ridiculous but widely-believed PC lie should be short and sweet and digestible. References to arid data or statistical qualifications won’t win over the common plebe or plebette.

One reason why anti-Cathedral dissidents rarely get traction in these sorts of arguments they should be winning handily is that they don’t know how to package their pushback in a way that makes it more receptive to the part of the listening audience who aren’t brain-dead true believers. What is true for seduction is true for persuasion. Terse charm >>> loquacious insistence.

So in that vein, some persuasive, office-friendly reframes to the 77% pay gap lie would be:

“You say that like it’s men’s fault.”

“And secretaries only make 10% of CEOs. We should narrow that gap too.”

“Motherhood really competes with work.”

“Handouts would fix the problem.”

I welcome the readers to add their own pay gap myth reframes.

***

PS On a related subject, change is a-blowin’ in the wind, my friends. It’s small change, but something is definitely happening. I’ve noticed of late a certain reticence by the boyfriends of SWPL girls to robotically agree with their girlfriends’ feminist boilerplate. Instead of the usual head nodding and “yes, yes”s whenever their girls babble feminist cant, these once-sackless wonders have begun to look off into the distance impatiently, and their blank expressions betray conversation thread-killing neutrality. It’s not the CH-style shiv, but it’s better than total supplication.

I’d like to think that the Chateau message is finally influencing the zeitgeist; if so, we may be cresting the horizon to revolution, and moving into a brighter, sunnier, more unapologetically erect day.

Read Full Post »

Perspicacious and numerate commenter “St” writes in response to this post about Shakespeare having his male characters utter fewer words than their romantic female counterparts,

CH,

I hope you realize that 101/155 = 65.1%

Which is disturbingly close (1.6%) to the 2/3 male-to-female text communication ratio you advise.

If that’s not another exogenous vindication of Chateau principles, I don’t know what is.

“St” is referring to CH’s Poon Commandment V:

V. Adhere to the golden ratio

Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

It appears that CH, knowingly or unwittingly ;), stumbled upon a deep and abiding truth about sex, love and the erotic nature of women that was known to the literary greats of the distant past.

Heartiste and Shakespeare… truly, madly, deeply in ❤️!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,843 other followers

%d bloggers like this: